This article is written by Saurabh Dwivedi of 9th semester of Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College Pune
Abstract
The Earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems are under constant threat from human activities, posing significant risks to the delicate balance of nature. The role of law becomes vital in order to reduce these hazards and guarantee the preservation of biodiversity. This article examines the crucial part that legal frameworks play in safeguarding ecosystems and biodiversity. It looks at the many national laws, international agreements, and regulatory frameworks put in place to protect biodiversity. It also emphasizes the primary legal frameworks, guiding concepts, and tactics for advancing conservation initiatives, sustainable development, and the equitable distribution of benefits from natural resource use.
Keywords
Biodiversity, ecosystems, legal frameworks, sustainable development, regulatory mechanisms, environmental protection
Introduction
Biodiversity, the remarkable variety of life on Earth, and ecosystems, the intricate networks of living organisms and their environments, are vital components of our planet’s natural heritage. However, human activities such as habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation of resources, and climate change have significantly impacted biodiversity and disrupted ecosystems worldwide. Recognizing the urgent need to protect and conserve these invaluable resources, national and international legal frameworks have emerged as essential tools in safeguarding biodiversity and preserving ecosystems.
Biodiversity schemes by Government of India
The rich nations need a consistent stockpile of organic assets from arising nations, as well as straightforward admittance to them. Developed nations are encouraging developing nations that lack the technological capabilities to utilize their resources. As a result, industrialized nations are losing out on the benefits of these natural resources. Emerging nations are currently requesting a bigger portion of the financial increases accomplished. Developed nations are also concerned about the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, particularly rainforests.
Mercury is pushing numerous natural life species nearer to elimination, especially those that are now undermined by different tensions. Environments a long way from the wellspring of mercury, like those in the Cold, are likewise seriously harmed. Additionally, mercury has a disproportionate impact on Indigenous people, who are the primary stewards of biodiversity. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, which safeguards the environment and human health from mercury exposure, is already in effect. The Global Biodiversity Framework is awaiting adoption by the UN Biodiversity Conference.
India’s biodiversity legislation
According to Section 2(b) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, biodiversity is “the variety among living creatures from all sources and the ecological complexes to which they belong, and encompasses diversity within or between species and of eco-systems[1].”
The term “biological diversity” refers to the variation among living things from all sources, such as terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecological complexes to which they belong. This includes variation within and between species as well as within and between ecosystems.
Biodiversity Act (2002)
Before the Biodiversity Act of 2002, India was required to abide by all international agreements and treaties, as stated in Article 51 of the Indian Constitution. India was required to abide by the terms of the Convention on Biological Diversity because it signed it in May 1994. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India[2], India’s judicial system reaffirmed the country’s dedication to fulfilling its international obligations to preserve biodiversity.
The nation’s highest court emphasized that domestic law must be interpreted in light of international conventions and standards by the government. The most noteworthy court likewise decided that safeguarding timberland territories and species involves sacred commitment. The United States of America enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002 and the Rule in 2004 as part of its international obligations.
The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 (the Act) was enacted by Indian lawmakers as a response to human-caused environmental damage and to fulfill their obligations under the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. “Conserve biological resources, take appropriate action for risk mitigation, and effectively address the issues regarding equitable sharing of benefits pertaining to the utilization of biological resources,” is the stated objective of the Act.
The Demonstration lays out a three-layered power system comprising of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), the State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), and the Biodiversity management committees of trustees to guarantee supportable utilization of assets while advancing evenhanded use and advantages (BMC). In enforcing rules and regulations that encourage preservation, responsible use, and equitable benefit distribution, each of these organizations plays a distinct role.
Recent Development
When it comes to effectively achieving the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, India ranks among the top performers, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. After consulting with residents, Biodiversity Management Committees are required by law to compile People’s Biodiversity Registers. It is critical to perceive that the Registers are something beyond records; They provide data that can be used to evaluate the situation on the ground and develop conservation and biodiversity preservation policies. In 2021, the Haryana State Biodiversity Board laid out over of 6,000 advisory groups to gather and record neighborhood skill on the subject of organic assets and biodiversity[3].
In 2012, India approved the Access and Benefit-sharing Clearing-House, which was intended to facilitate the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Since then, it has served as a platform for the effective sharing of genetic resources-related data. The Madhya Pradesh State Biodiversity Board announced the positive outcomes that would follow in 2013 when it mandated that businesses profit from the state’s bioresources. The decree also went into detail about the authorizations that businesses need to use biological resources for profit.
The National Biodiversity Authority (part of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change) published the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Regulations, 2019 through a notification released in 2019. The Public Biodiversity Authority (part of the Service of Climate, Backwoods, and Environmental Change) distributed the Rules on Admittance to Organic Assets and Related Information and Impartial Sharing of Advantages Guidelines, 2019 through a notification3 delivered in 2019. It appears from the Guidelines that the State Biodiversity Board is committed to consent to the guidelines thereunder, and it likewise forces explicit obligations on specialists and researchers with respect to revelations made in India however put away in a storehouse beyond the country.
Furthermore, to assist with working with Joined Countries settlement on issues connected with organic variety and the game plan to really safeguard and safeguard nature and its assets, the Secretariat of the UN Show on Organic Variety has delivered another design called the Worldwide System for Overseeing Nature Through 20304. This new paradigm aims to encourage governments and society as a whole, particularly indigenous people and local communities, to take more immediate and transformative actions to lessen threats to biodiversity.
Landmark Judgment
Tirupathi v. State of AP, Intellectuals Forum[4]
There are two kinds of questions about the present situation. First and foremost, at a jurisprudential level, it falls on this Court to set some hard boundaries with respect to the utilization of public grounds or normal assets. In this case, the Court has reiterated the significance of the Doctrine of Public Trust in preserving sustainable development, which the United Nations General Assembly has declared to be an inalienable human right.
Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors[5]
The Doon Valley, located in the Mussoorie hill chain of the Himalayas, was once a region abundant in resources and natural beauty. However, in the 1950s, limestone mining activities began in the valley, leading to environmental degradation caused by the use of explosives, deforestation, and severe mining practices. This resulted in landslides, floods, water scarcity, high temperatures, and the destruction of agricultural lands.
The Uttar Pradesh State Minister of Mines initially banned mining in the state in 1961, but mining licenses were later approved in 1962, leading to the resumption of quarrying. By 1982, the state government recognized the environmental damage and banned mining leases for regeneration, but mining companies contested this decision in the Supreme Court, with the Allahabad high court favoring economic gain over environmental concerns.
In response to the environmental degradation and concerns raised by the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), a local NGO, the Supreme Court of India intervened. The court ordered the evaluation of ongoing mining operations in the Doon Valley and directed the state government to create a database for the region’s agriculture.
The Supreme Court examined several issues, including the applicability of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 to lease renewal procedures, the violation of the act by mining on government lands, and the prioritization of environmental protection over economic assistance.
The petitioners argued that the environmental degradation had already begun before the statute of limitations was established and that mining activities were carried out in accordance with relevant laws. The court appointed committees to investigate the matter and, based on their recommendations, ordered the closure of the most dangerous mines in Mussoorie City.
In 1986, the Environmental Protection Act was ratified by Parliament, designating the Doon Valley as an organically sensitive area. The court found that mining in designated forest areas violated the Forest Conservation Act. To address the ecological damage, the court instructed the central government’s Eco-Task Force to recover and reforest the mining-damaged area, while also providing job preferences to the employees displaced by mine closures. Overall, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Doon Valley Litigation case led to the recognition of environmental concerns, the implementation of conservation measures, and the prioritization of ecological integrity alongside economic interests.
Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India[6]
Facts
The candidate T.N. Godavarman has recorded a writ petition in 1995 at Supreme Court of India to shield the Nilgiris woodland land from deforestation by the unlawful ways for lumber tasks. As a result, bearing in mind the significance of safeguarding and conserving the nation’s forests. As a result, the court has suggested holding a proper hearing to investigate the nature of the case in relation to the National Forest Policy.
Therefore, as stated in Section 2, any activity that takes place within any forest in any state throughout the nation must have the approval of the central government, and in the event that this approval is not obtained, the central government has the authority to close the premises.
Issues Raised
Areas that fall under the category of ‘FOREST’ should be identified, any law that should classify such forest irrespective of the ownership of the land.
That regions ought to likewise be grouped or distinguished which were before timberlands however at late they were stranded on a mission to be corrupted, exposed or cleared.
Regions covered with estate trees ought to likewise isolated among government and confidential assets.
Judgement
According to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, deforestation of plantations was considered illegal without the prior permission of the central government or the forest department of the concerned district or area, whether the property belongs to the government or a private individual. However, the court has observed that the defendant owns the land and has complete control over his property or premises.
In addition to the preceding decision, the court has observed that, in order to preserve biodiversity and the proper ecological balance, it should be completely prohibited to cut down any kind of tree without permission.
Everyone, regardless of whether railways, roads, or waterways require it, shall be subject to the cutting or felling of trees. In order to maintain a healthy ecological balance, the state government is authorized to cut down trees in a responsible manner. The trees could not be cut by any other private individual.
Still more. The court has comprised various councils containing Head Boss Conservator of Woods and one more Senior Official to direct the working of the panels to guarantee legitimate working of the framework.
The committees established by the court gave orders to the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, the Hill Areas of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu for the purpose of maintaining forests and safeguarding nature.
Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand[7]
This case has to do with the Ganga pollution problem. As a feature of the PIL, Lalit Miglani fought gross disappointment on piece of the public authority specialists including both the Focal and the State towards the release of their legal obligations for counteraction of contamination in stream Ganga. The High Court of Uttarakhand prescribed the Association of India to approach a regulation only to save Ganga from elimination. The court emphasized the rapid deterioration of the river’s quality and held that every citizen has a right to clean water. The court issued a number of mandatory orders, including (i) a directive to the Union of India to establish an inter-State Council in accordance with Article 263 of the Indian Constitution and a number of instructions regarding the construction of sewage treatment plants; (ii) ii) instructions on how to shut down polluting businesses, take action against ashrams and other places that let untreated sewage into the river, and so on.
Conclusion
The job of regulation in safeguarding biodiversity and saving environments couldn’t possibly be more significant. Legal frameworks provide the necessary tools to address the challenges facing biodiversity conservation and ecosystem preservation through international conventions, national laws, and regulatory mechanisms. Nonetheless, to accomplish unmistakable outcomes, these regulations should be actually carried out and upheld, with expanded worldwide participation and cooperative and collaborative efforts. Robust legal frameworks, coupled with sustainable development practices and equitable benefit-sharing arrangements, are crucial for safeguarding biodiversity and securing the future of our planet’s ecosystems.
[1] https://www.tutorialspoint.com/biodiversity-laws-in-india#:~:text=The%20Parliament%20passed%20the%20Wild,animals%2C%20birds%2C%20and%20vegetation.
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187366700/
[3] https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9924-aspects-of-biodiversity-law.html#:~:text=Wildlife%20Protection%20Act%201972%3A,to%20uproot%20or%20cut%20them.
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1867873/
[5] https://thelegallock.com/rural-litigation-and-entitlement-kendra-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-ors/
[6] https://www.mondaq.com/india/diversity-equity–inclusion/1159608/india–its-biodiversity-laws–is-it-enough
[7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92201770/
0 Comments